I believe that the Legend of King Arthur is all fiction without any historical basis because there is no real evidence to support his existence and all of the evidence discovered ended up making more sense than not.
Within the documentary, the narrator mentioned suspicious time figures between the evidence that had been mentioned for him. In example, the first writing of King Arthur was discovered three hundred years after his supposed death. This brings up suspicion because you would expect for there to be more recently discovered writings of a king’s existence. This ends up not supporting the fact that King Arthur was actually based on a historical figure because the time frame between the uncovered evidence of him and his existence do not
Within the documentary, the narrator mentioned suspicious time figures between the evidence that had been mentioned for him. In example, the first writing of King Arthur was discovered three hundred years after his supposed death. This brings up suspicion because you would expect for there to be more recently discovered writings of a king’s existence. This ends up not supporting the fact that King Arthur was actually based on a historical figure because the time frame between the uncovered evidence of him and his existence do not